- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.805/2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIJAY MAHANTESH PATIL SON OF SRI. SANGANAGOWDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARAI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 057. 2. SMT. AISHWARYA SHELLIKERI WIFE OF SRI VIJAY MAHANTESH PATIL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560 057 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR N.G. ADV.,) AND: HMT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED H.M.T. AUXILIARY BUSINESS DIVISION BUILDING (ABD) 1ST FLOOR, JALAHALLI POST BENGALURU 560 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 AND ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6425/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-13) FOR PERUSAL. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6425/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-13) AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.6425/2021 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025 in O.S.No.6425/2021 on the file of the V Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). By the said judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The brief facts are as under: The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents and representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule ‘A’ property or - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 from causing any hindrance in the use of Schedule ‘B’ property. Schedule ‘A’ property is described as under: SCHEDULE-A All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No.1, measuring East to West 60 Feet towards North 37 Feet and towards South 39 Feet, in all measuring 2280 Square Feet, situated at IEHCS Layout, Vidyaranyapura Ward No.9, BBMP, Bengaluru, and bounded on the EAST : by Private land WEST : by Site No.2 NORTH : by Road SOUTH : by Site No.27 Schedule ‘B’ property is described as under: SCHEDULE-B All that piece and parcel of 30 Feet Road formed by the IEHCS Society in Survey Nos.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Narasipura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District and bounded on the : EAST : by Private land WEST : by Road NORTH : by Site No.112 SOUTH : by Schedule-A Property 3. Plaintiffs claim ownership of schedule ‘A’ property through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2021. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 They allege that the defendant-Society attempted to form a site on the road (schedule ‘B’ property) contrary to the BDA approved plan, thereby obstructing their right of ingress and egress. 4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. The defendant contended that schedule ‘B’ property is a road meant for residents and no site formation was carried out. Further, that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to seek injunction. 5. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P11. The defendant did not lead any evidence. 6. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, observed that plaintiffs proved possession over schedule ‘A’ property. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was reducing 30 ft road (schedule ‘B’ property) by forming a site (15 x 50 ft). However, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 there was no documentary proof of actual interference. PW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that no site had been formed, no complaint had been filed with BDA / BBMP and plaintiffs failed to prove any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent-Society cannot claim ownership on road or civic amenity areas. The respondent-Society, with an intention to cause hindrance to the plaintiffs, has carved out a site on the northern side of the Schedule ‘A’ property, which aspect has been totally overlooked by the Trial Court. 8. The point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs?" 9. On careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and findings of the Trial Court, this Court finds no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The following reasons fortify the dismissal of the suit: i. The plaintiffs case hinges on mere apprehension that the defendant intends to form a site on the schedule ‘B’ road. Except for the production of layout plans, no cogent evidence was adduced to demonstrate actual interference. The plaintiffs have neither complaints to statutory authorities, nor any official communication indicating encroachment. Mere apprehension without substantiation cannot be the basis for granting a decree of permanent injunction. ii. During cross-examination, PW.1 unequivocally admitted that no site had been formed in schedule ‘B’ property as on the date of the suit, no complaint was filed before BDA / BBMP regarding alleged interference. These admissions demolish the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 iii. The plaintiffs are absolute owners of Schedule ‘A’ property, but do not hold title over Schedule ‘B’ property, which is a road vested for public use. Their right, at the best, is one of easementary access. An injunction cannot be granted in respect of property over which plaintiffs have no ownership, unless they demonstrate interference with their established easementary rights. The Trial Court rightly observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish such interference. iv. Even assuming that defendant attempted to form a site on Schedule ‘B’, the competent authority to regulate such illegal encroachment is BDA/BBMP. The plaintiffs, instead of invoking the jurisdiction of statutory authorities, rushed to the Civil Court without exhausting efficacious remedies. The principle is well settled that where a statutory mechanism exists, civil courts must slow to interfere. v. A suit for injunction requires proof of (i) lawful possession, and (ii) actual or threatened interference. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 While possession of Schedule ‘A’ was proved, no interference was established. The absence of cause of action, as correctly noted by the Trial Court, renders the suit untenable. vi. The reliance placed by the plaintiffs on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka and others1 (M/s Vinayak House Building) is misplaced. In that case, interference was clearly proved and the ratio was applied in those factual circumstances. In the present case, interference itself is not proved, making the precedent inapplicable. vii. Injunction is an equitable relief. A party approaching the Court must establish not only legal right but also a prima facie injury. Granting injunction in such circumstances would amount to restraining the defendant- society without any lawful justification. 1 Civil Appeal No.3600/2011 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34317 R.F.A. No.805/2025 10. In view of the above, this Court concurs with the trial Court that the plaintiffs, though owners in possession of Schedule ‘A’ property, failed to prove any interference with their enjoyment of the said property or obstruction in the use of Schedule ‘B’ road. The dismissal of suit is therefore proper and calls for no interference in this appeal and accordingly, this Court pass the following: Order i. The regular first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025 in O.S.No.6425/2021 on the file of the V Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru stands confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11